The design and analysis of stochastic cost-effectiveness studies for the evaluation of health care interventions
Andrew H. Briggs, Magnus Tambour
Abstract
Andrew H. Briggs, Magnus Tambour
Abstract
Many clinical trials are in progress which involve the collection of patient-level data on both the health outcome and resource use consequences of the health care interventions under evaluation. The overall aim of many such evaluations will be to undertake a cost-effectiveness analysis, which will often result in a cost-effectiveness ratio summarising the value for money of the intervention in question. In this paper, we explore the issues surrounding the design and analysis of such studies. At the design stage of an analysis, we propose an improved sample size formula for cost-effectiveness analysis that allows for covariance between cost and effect differences. This approach is based on the 'net benefits' approach to the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. At the analysis stage of an evaluation, we explore the differences and similarities of the 'net benefit' approach to analysing cost-effectiveness information and the traditional approach based on cost-effectiveness ratios. Despite the apparent differences, we show that the two approaches are exactly equivalent when it comes to estimating the probability that the intervention is cost-effective under alternative values of the ceiling cost-effectiveness ratio appropriate for decision-making purposes.
OpenAlex reports 3 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Many clinical trials are in progress which involve the collection of patient-level data on both the health outcome and resource use consequences of the health care interventions under evaluation. The overall aim of many such evaluations will be to undertake a cost-effectiveness analysis, which will often result in a cost-effectiveness ratio summarising the value for money of the intervention in question. In this paper, we explore the issues surrounding the design and analysis of such studies. At the design stage of an analysis, we propose an improved sample size formula for cost-effectiveness analysis that allows for covariance between cost and effect differences. This approach is based on the 'net benefits' approach to the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. At the analysis stage of an evaluation, we explore the differences and similarities of the 'net benefit' approach to analysing cost-effectiveness information and the traditional approach based on cost-effectiveness ratios. Despite the apparent differences, we show that the two approaches are exactly equivalent when it comes to estimating the probability that the intervention is cost-effective under alternative values of the ceiling cost-effectiveness ratio appropriate for decision-making purposes.
Key concepts: Cost-effectiveness analysis, Psychological intervention, Cost effectiveness, Cost–benefit analysis, Analysis of covariance, Health care, Risk analysis (engineering), Outcome (game theory)